Say yes to minibuses to aid London's millions
Page 70
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Noel Millier argues that the capital can learn from Hong Kong, and through convenience and lower fares attract many car drivers back to public transport
PROPOSALS to introduce minibuses on bus routes to provide another tier of public transport in London have already stimulated public debate. They have caused London Transport Executive, which has power to authorise bus services in London, to take the unusual step of appointing an independent inspector to hold a public hearing before it comes to a decision.
Fears are being voiced that minibus services will cause an increase in traffic congestion and provide wasteful competition. Experience in other parts of the world suggests that they could well please the public.
The London proposal is the brainchild of Tony Shepherd, who has been involved in legalising and setting up minibus services in Hong Kong and such cities as Kuala Lumpur, in Malaysia, and currently, Kingston, Jamaica.
The Public Light Bus system in Hong Kong, already being used as an example of how minibuses contribute to traffic congestion, has a number of essential differences to the London proposals. The very nature of Hong Kong, with its massive population living in a relatively small area, provides a significant impact on traffic congestion for any type of road transport.
The PLBs appeared in Hong Kong in 1969 when the HK government "regularised" an illegal but thriving minibus trade. The minibus trade had achieved an indispensable position in the public transport system of the Colony after disturbances at the time of the Cultural Revolution in China led many regular bus drivers to strike.
In Hong Kong the minibuses remain popular with passengers. Although they do abstract passengers from the conventional franchised bus operators, the demand for public transport is such that the total capacity of all modes is often filled.
The PLBs have an essential difference with a proposed London system in that in the main they do not operate separate routes. They follow public demand and provide door to door convenience at much
lower fares than taxicabs. While they are more extravagant users of road space than double-deck buses, they are undoubtedly a more economical substitute for cars and taxis. The PLBs are profitable and are operated by individual owner-drivers.
The profit motive has at times caused competing PLB drivers to indulge in brinkmanship and selfish and aggressive driving when competing for passengers. They are clearly the cause of congestion when they congregate at areas of high demand (such as at factory gates at the time the workers finish their day).
A Hong Kong Government White Paper published in 1979 concludes that while PLBs seek out the corridors of maximum demand which are congestion prone, and are where high capacity double-deck buses and trams operate, it would be wrong to ban them completely as they provide a useful service for people prepared to pay more and who would otherwise opt for private transport.
The Government in Hong Kong has franchised a number of PLBs to operate over specific routes. These vehicles, known as Maxicabs, are similar in specification to the 14-seat Nissans used as PLBs, but are recognisable by their cream and green livery instead of the cream and red used by the PLB. Organising PLBs onto franchised routes has not proved easy owing to the individualism of the operators and the profitability of serving main traffic corridors and or special events and attractions. There are, however, 57 franchised Maxicabs routes now in operation.
Hong Kong has 4,350 public light buses and maxicabs in Service and they have an estimated daily ridership of more than 1.5 million. The PLB fares are higher than "conventional" bus fares and drivers issue no tickets.
Tony Shepherd was involved in the setting up of a mini bus system in Kuala Lumpur, federal capital of Malaysia, and this system has much in common with the proposed London setup. Here the system was introduced to supplement the conventional stage services and attract car owners who were thought unlikely to travel by conventional bus, because of infrequent and over-crowded services.
The KL system commenced operation with a fleet of 400 Nissan and other minibuses operating on 16 routes radiating into the city centre. The introduction did abstract some passengers from the still over-crowded conventional buses despite slightly higher fares. On my visits to KL I have found the "bas mini" undoubtedly popular although like the big buses somewhat prone to overcrowding. They were driven in a spirited manner . . .
The buses were flexible in stopping anywhere at the suburban end of the routes although they used authorised pick-up oints in the city centre. The KL iinibuses charge a flat fare, sually slightly above that of the onventional stage bus. All uses in KL, including the iinibuses, are conductor perated.
Most of the KL routes are beseen 12 and 16 miles in length nd minibuses normally operate very five to 10 minutes. The 400 ninibuses operating on the KL ystem are run by 167 operators, ach of which has vehicles pecifically licensed for indilclual routes. The vehicles are )ainted in an approved livery vhich includes the route lumber and list of points served. The foreign exchange compolent of the KL minibus project vas funded by a World Bank oan and the system now merates, like the KL convenional services, without revenue ;upport. Most of the original 16 ;eat integral Nissan buses used )n the services have now been • eplaced with coachbuilt /elides including Mercedes3enz 508 buses with locally built )odies. On at least one route the demand has meant that 21-pasmanger vehicles have been introduced.
I found in KL that while many )assengers seemed to prefer the minibus, they would catch whataver came first, conventional bus or mini. While the minibus does contribute to the overall and high level of traffic in KL, it was difficult to directly attribute any congestion specifically to them.
The popularity of the PLB and the minibus in Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur is without question. The unpopularity of the vehicle with the conventional bus operators and the transport departments is also evident, but in both cities operators and authorities have learned to live with the minibus.
What will happen should the London scheme get the goahead? From what I have seen of these operations in very different environments, the establishing of an initial pilot scheme is likely to be in the public interest. At the least it must be in the public interest to see just what would be the impact.
Passenger levels in London have been declining in recent years (except during the legally unacceptable period of "Fares Fair") and the cost of bus operation has been rising. Although the operation of London Buses is becoming more efficient it is undeniable that LT is a high-cost bus operator. The proposed minibus scheme would be able to offer cheaper and possibly faster travel than conventional buses. The proposed service would have to operate viably to survive without the aid of revenue support, so only the public attitude to minibuses will have a direct bearing on the future.
If the KL experience is anything to go by, people will catch whatever comes along first, LT bus or minibus, and this could well reduce LT operating revenue.
Despite this, judged by Kuala Lumpur's experience if the scheme (named Amos) ever commences operation in London it will prove popular with passengers and could well attract any private transport users back to public transport.
One problem that has occurred in both Hong Kong and KL is that of aggressive driving, spurred by the profit motive with driver earnings directly related to passengers carried. Amos proposes that each minibus on its route will be operated on some form of lease by the driver and that he will pay a management charge to Amos and keep the remainder of the revenue.
Each driver would be responsible for paying his own income tax, but like his Far East counterparts would improve his profits by increasing the number of passengers carried. The authorities would be anxiously watching the new service and the drivers would be responsible for paying for their own accident damage — two factors that should quickly be reflected in responsible driving standards.
Since the 1980 Transport Act encouraged competition for public transport, few independents have attempted any largescale competition with urban operators. The CK coach experience in Cardiff emphasises the difficulty facing any individual attempting to compete with an established public operator.
The cost of buying and operating new, sophisticated urban buses together with the need for expensive infrastructure, including engineering and garaging facilities, and the likely low or non-existent profit return, makes conventional urban bus operation on a large scale an unattractive new business proposition.
The need and advantages of competition remain and by using small vehicles the need for expensive infrastructure is reduced. Amos proposes that most vehicle maintenance would be carried out by Ford dealers, all well qualified in dealing with the Transit chassis.
The need for expensive garaging is also removed with the individual lesees arranging their own. If vehicles used were any larger, while they may have proved more robust in service, they could cause environmental objections with overnight parking.
Amos may well need to employ an inspector to check that the drivers are keeping the buses maintained at approved garages. However, as it proposes to replace vehicles every two years, costs should be mainly routine and predictable.
Operator licensing for the operator should not prove a problem although on its application Amos may have to list garaging spaces for each of its overnight parking spots or alternatively each lessee could apply for his own operator's licence, listing an Amos manager as his competent transport manager. .
The prospect of intensive minibus operation on London corridors is one that I believe could be beneficial to the public in the long term. The main disadvantages in other cities should mostly be avoided by carefully selecting directly involved and motivated staff. The conveniences of highly utilised low-capacity buses operating on a frequent headway could attract many people back to public transport, although "Stop on demand" operation could present problems on some roads.
While a fully laden minibus is obviously a less economic user of road space than a double-deck bus, its attraction to the rider increases with its operating speed and it remains a far more efficient user of road space than the private car or taxi.
Operation on busy urban corridor routes in Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong has taken passengers from traditional bus services and it seems likely that the same thing will happen in London. If Amos is successful it is possible that LT will lose passengers on viable routes and this could result in the public operator claiming the need to reduce or abandon lightly used or socially desirable services in other areas.
However, it is true that Amos proposes a totally viable operation and London Transport remains a very high-cost operation. A minibus service, with lower fare levels, could well provide better value for money for both London ratepayers and riders.
Intensive minibus operation may well prove more attractive than many in the bus industry expect, although it seems that it will prove an alternative rather than a replacement for the traditional bus.